God's Laws About Prosperity

1. Case laws about theft, 22:1-4.

In these first four verses we have a distinction between the book of the covenant between the LORD and Israel and the other ancient Near East laws. The Code of Hammurabi, Section 8, states that if a thief could not repay, or his theft was by breaking into the house, death was the penalty. Theft under the LORD’s covenant however did not result in a death penalty.

The type of theft mentioned here would impact the livelihood of another in an agrarian society. The ox was fit for heavy hauling and strong labor, the sheep was valuable for its wool. Both animals could also be slaughtered for food. The thief did not have the right to kill the animal for food for himself or others nor to sell it for profit. Therefore, he was to give full restitution with varying measures of punitive multiplication. This is possibly because these animals are part of a victim’s loss of livelihood. This is contrasted in verse 4, where if the animal is found alive in the thief’s possession, he is to pay double the value of the animal.

But what happens if the thief cannot make restitution? Then he was to become a working slave of the victim of the theft until he could work off what he owed. The principle is that restitution is required of the guilty one, not death.

Verse 2 speaks to a typical case where a thief is caught while breaking in. If he is caught at night and struck so that he dies, this case says that the victim is protected from homicide because it was in self-defense. He had no way of knowing in the dark of night the intent of the thief toward himself or his family, potentially greater danger because of night.

Verse 3a provides the daytime protection for the thief; that is, if the thief is discovered in daytime and is struck so he dies, then the one who struck him will be guilty of homicide.

2. Case laws about damage due to negligence, 22:5-6.

Negligence is the key theme here in these two examples in verses 5 and 6. Verse 5 speaks of restitution from the best of what the negligent man has. The Code of Hammurabi, Section 57, only requires restitution—not necessarily from the best. The same is true of verse 6. This distinction points out God’s respect for the rights of others.

3. Laws focusing on property disputes with neighbors, 22:7-15.

a. Regarding disputes over deposited goods, 22:7-13.

Verse 7 is straightforward: When a third-party stole from the one entrusted with money or goods of a neighbor and the thief is caught, the thief pays restitution.

Verse 8 stipulates that the thief is not caught; suspicion then falls on the one who was entrusted with his neighbor’s money or goods. He is to be brought before the elders/judges and they will determine whether he himself laid his hands on that entrusted to him.

Verse 9 gives more information in relation to a breach of trust between neighbors. One claims that his lost thing is in the hands of another; then both shall come before the judges and their decision is final.

Verse 10-11 is a case in which one party keeps an animal for another and something happens to it while no one was looking. Here they are to go before the LORD and make an oath before Him that the one who received the animal did not take it for himself. The owner shall accept this statement, and no restitution is made.

Verse 12 is self-explanatory. Because he was the animal’s caregiver, his negligence in allowing the theft makes him responsible; thus the restitution.

The death of an animal in his care by a wild animal would not be held against him.

b. Regarding disputes over borrowed goods, 22:14-15.

A modern example to illustrate these laws is the following: If you borrow a friend’s car, driving it by yourself and you get into an accident, you pay for the repairs (v. 14). If you borrow a friend’s car and you are driving it with your friend in the car and you get into an accident, and the friend observes that it is not your fault, he may not require you to pay for repairs (v. 15a). If you have rented the car and get into an accident, the cost of the rental and the insurance cover the damage (v. 15b). There is of course not a direct one-to-one correspondence with this example to these laws, but it may help us understand how this works.

4. Case law about a father’s “property,” 22:16-17.

The emphasis on seduction here indicates that in this case there was no violence, and this may very well have been considered consensual. However, she is still under her father’s house and under his authority as well as, strictly in a legal sense, his ‘property.’ When the daughter would get betrothed, the father would receive a marriage gift. It is the loss of virginity that may reduce the likelihood of future marriage and children. Therefore, the man who does this must marry her to give the woman that security. He must also give a marriage gift whether the father allows the marriage or not! This is a matter of honor as well as lost financial interest to the father. It also adds a measure of protection for the father and a warning for both would-be seducers as well as the virgin daughter.

For many commentators, this concludes this section of the Book of the Covenant.

Key Theological Points:

Here are some key theological points from these verses:

1. We are to have respect for the property and the rights of one another.

These laws are meant to instill in the people of Israel a respect for the property and rights of one another. We have an obligation to see to it that no one suffers financial loss through our dishonesty, irresponsible actions or indifferent attitude.

2. An equitable method for resolving property disputes is an essential for society to function.

The laws imply that when humans are in contact with one another, invariably there will be conflict. As such, an equitable method for resolving property disputes is essential for society to function.

3. Property rights are real.

Israel was never a communal society; the land and its cattle did not belong to “the people.” They belonged to individual Israelites.

4. Property is never on a par with human life.

One may kill a thief if one reasonably feels endangered by the thief, but one may not kill a person for the sake of a stolen sheep. The defense of human life is the highest moral law, and it trumps lower laws.

5. Religious acts, such as taking an oath, can be devices of evasion and dishonesty.

As such, taking an oath in God’s name does not overrule contrary evidence.

6. The case law penalties, grounded in the principle of restitution, by design imparted lessons to miscreants about property rights.

It is noteworthy that the text offers two forms of punishment: restitution and slavery. The latter strikes us as very harsh, but we should recall that slavery in Israel was, by law, temporary and not a lifelong sentence. There is no provision for punishment by imprisonment in these laws. Arguably, the biblical provisions give the criminal more dignity than do modern penal systems. By directly repaying or by working off his obligations, the Israelite had his value as a man reaffirmed, and he was not confined with thousands of other criminals. The Old Testament code was not an especially draconian code. But its penalties, grounded in the principle of restitution, by design imparted lessons to miscreants about property rights.

7. This text points to possessing integrity before the Lord in dealing with others in every area of our lives.

Ultimately, this is a passage about integrity. That we should not steal, that we should always respect the property of others even where stealing is not the issue, and that we should seek out fair ways of resolving disputes are obvious lessons. A New Testament counterpart to this text may be the letter to Philemon, where Paul exhorts a Christian not to value his property above another man’s soul. Property rights are important and should not be violated by individuals or governments, but they are not the highest of all values for the Christian.